Summer School “The EU area of freedom, security and justice”, July 1-3, 2017 Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece The Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, in collaboration with the Jean Monnet Chair of the Democritus University of Thrace organize a summer school entitled “The EU area of freedom, security and justice”, that will take place in July 1-3, at the Conference Room of the University of Macedonia.

1. Asylum in the European Union –
history, policies and future
Ioannis Papageorgiou
Assistant Professor
School of Political Sciences
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

3. The origins of the EU
asylum policies
From national to European

4. European integration and
asylum
 Asylum not part of integration policies till the 1980s
 The gradual rapprochement of E.C. Member States
asylum policies (in the context of intergovernmental
cooperation) due to:
 Freedom of movement
 The Single Market
 Immigration policies in general

5. The early stages of
European asylum policies
 The intergovernmental groups (Trevi, groupe ad hoc
immigration, groupe asile)
 The Schengen system
 The gradual shaping of the Dublin system

6. The Dublin system
 The increase, globally, of asylum applications
 Secondary movements
 Refugees in “orbit”
 The aim of avoiding the examination of an asylum
application by more than one member state

7. The Dublin system (II)
 One and only one member state is competent to
examine an asylum application
 The determination of the member state responsible for
any specific application takes place at the start of the
asylum procedure
 A number of specific, hierarchical criteria are agreed
upon, establishing responsibility.

8. The Dublin Convention
 An international legal instrument (not a Community
instrument) – adopted in June 1990 in force in
September 1997
 Accompanied the early stages of the Schengen system
 Applied (later on – 2000) in conjunction with a
“Community” legal instrument to compare asylum
seekers’ fingerprints (Regulation2725/2000 or Eurodac
regulation)

9. The gradual “communitarisation” of asylum
policies – the Treaty of Maastricht
 The Treaty of Maastricht sets up a 3rd pillar (Justice and
Home Affairs): «Member States shall regard the …area
[of asylum] as matters of common interest» which
imposes upon them to «inform and consult one another
within the Council with a view to coordinating their
action»
 Asylumpart of the 3rd pillar
 A Union policy but with a strong intergovernmental dimension
 The 1992 London Resolutions  the first ‘soft law’
harmonization of asylum policies

10. The gradual “communitarisation” of asylum
policies – the Treaty of Amsterdam
 Article B: «The Union shall set itself the following
objectives:… to maintain and develop the Union as an
area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free
movement of persons is assured in conjunction with
appropriate measures with respect to external border
controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and
combating of crime».
 The treaty integrates asylum into Union law
 It allows for the introduction, after 5 years, of qualified majority
vote for legislative acts on asylum.

11. The gradual “communitarisation” of asylum
policies – the Treaty of Amsterdam (II)
 Article 63 of the Treaty on the European Union (The
Amsterdam Treaty) allowed the Council to «adopt
measures on… minimum standards on the reception of
asylum seekers,… the qualification of nationals of third
countries as refugees...and… procedures in Member
States for granting or withdrawing refugee status».

12. The gradual “communitarisation” of asylum
policies – the Tampere conclusions
 To establish a Common European Asylum
System which should include, in the short term:
 a clear and workable determination of the State
responsible for the examination of an asylum
application,
 common standards for a fair and efficient asylum
procedure,
 common minimum conditions of reception of asylum
seekers,
 and the approximation of rules on the recognition
and content of the refugee status

13. The first wave of EU legislation (2000-
2005)
 Eurodac regulation
 Reception conditions directive
 Dublin-II regulation
 Refugee qualification directive
 Directive on the procedures to recognize refugee status
 As well as
 Temporary protection in case of mass influx directive

14. The early period of
application
From the inter-governmental to the Union competence

15. The main characteristics
 Minimum standards
 Unanimity
 A (very) national-centered implementation
 The significance of the Dublin system

16. A “securitized migration”
 The gradual consideration of migration as a security-
centered issue
 Irregular entry
 Border controls
 Returns/deportation
 The significant aspect of asylum in irregular migration

17. The impact of regulation
343/2003 (Dublin -2)
 An increasing number of problems:
 A gradual distinction between MS receiving and sending
Dublin cases
 The predominance of the illegal entry criterion
 The clash between MS of the center and of the periphery
 The degradation of the asylum systems in the MS of the
periphery

18. The shortcomings of the
Dublin system
 The Dublin system was not designed to ensure a sustainable sharing of
responsibility for across the EU
 The main criterion in practice for allocating responsibility for asylum claims is
irregular entry through one Member State’s territory
 In cases of mass influx along specific migratory routes as now) the vast
majority of newcomers arrive through few or even one Member State
 Stretching capacities in these Member States and increasing disregard for EU
rules
 And creating “systemic flaws” in critical aspects of their asylum procedures or
reception conditions
 Leading to the suspension of transfers (Greece after 2011 and the M.S.S.
case)

19. Towards a Common
European Asylum
System

20. The Hague program (2005): 10
priorities for the next five years
 Setting up a common asylum procedure
 a directive concerning long-term resident status for
refugees
 in the medium-term a common procedure and status
for refugees
 Operational cooperation in the field of asylum

21. The Treaty of Lisbon
 Article 78 TFEU: The Union sets the objective to
«develop a common policy» - and no longer minimum
standards as in the Amsterdam Treaty - «on asylum,
subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a
view to offering appropriate status to any third-country
national requiring international protection and ensuring
compliance with the principle of non-refoulement».

22. The European context
 Migration and asylum are a shared
competence for the European Union and
member states
 EU may provide standards, harmonize,
ensure rights
 But Member States command entry of
migrants and control of external borders

23. The Stockholm Program (2010)
 Asylum: a common area of protection and
solidarity…based on a common asylum procedure and
a uniform status for those granted international
protection.
 Establishing a common asylum system in 2012
 New legislative acts, in order to achieve the
establishment of a Common European Asylum System
(CEAS).

24. The C.E.A.S.
 New legislation concerning the 4 Tampere milestones
(reception, asylum examination procedures,
qualification of refugees, Dublin-3)
 The new legislation will no longer contain minimum but
common standards
 The right of law enforcement authorities to have access
to Eurodac

25. The main characteristics in
the C.E.A.S.
 Institutional changes
 An increased role for the Commission
 Qualified majority vote in Council
 Co-decision and the right of the EP to participate on an
equal footing in legislation
 The added parameter of court rulings and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights
 Political changes
 An increase in mixed migration flows
 A strengthening of anti-immigration stances in Europe

26. The impact of the C.E.A.S.
 Reinforcement of the Commission
 Through infringement procedures against MS not
respecting the CEAS rules
 Through delegated acts (esp. in the Dublin regulation)
 A lack of trust
 Between Member States
 Between EU institutions
 To the asylum institution, in general

27. The Greek context
 An ethically homogeneous country till the 1990s
 Becomes a migrant destination (through irregular entry) in
particular from neighboring countries
 While asylum remains a marginal phenomenon of low interest
 The increase in mixed migration flows and the crises in the Middle
East and Asia turn Greece into a transit and destination country
 The increase in asylum applications and the lack of investments
on reception and adjudication  collapse of the Greek asylum
system
 The impact of the Dublin pressure
 Greece not a functional part of the C.E.A.S.

28. The Syrian refugee crisis and
the C.E.A.S.

29. The origins of the current
crisis
 The civil war in Syria
 Leads an increased number of Syrians to move to
neighboring countries (esp. Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon)
 And gradually after 2014 to seek asylum in the EU
(mainly Germany, Sweden)
 Crossing Greece and other EU countries irregularly
 A movement that in summer 2015 becomes a mass
influx
 Leading to the 2015-6 refugee and political crisis

30. The development of the situation since
2015
 The period of open borders
 Greece as a transit country facilitating movement
 “not in my yard”
 The period of closed borders
 Refugees stranded
 A humanitarian crisis
 The emphasis on return
 The impact on EU policies
 The relocation concept
 The new Commission proposals onsolidarity

31. The context
 Refugees from Syria, Iraq. Afghanistan, Africa
 Mixed migration flows
 National response
 A slow process of decision making
 The significance of the role of Turkey

32. The impact on EU asylum
policy
 The right to choose the asylum country?
 What constitutes a safe third country?
 Towards a new EU division? East vs. West?
 Can you have a Common Asylum System without a
single asylum status?
 The impact on Schengen

34. STATISTICS
2015 2016 2017
Arrivals Greek-Turkish borders 876.232 (872.519 through sea
borders)
179.419(175.127 through sea
borders)
(end April) 5.282
International protection
applications
13.195 51.092 (end March)16.870
Relocation requests (between 10-12/2015)
577
12.900 (end April) 7.394
Persons of concern in Greece
(end April 2017)
62.018
(of whom 13.879 in the Aegean
islands)
Persons lodged in camps
(mainland, as of May 2017)
34.469
Persons lodged in camps
(islands, as of May 2017)
12.889
Returns to Turkey under EU-
Turkey Statement
801 (up to 23 April) 293

35. SITUATION 2017 (till 25/6)
ITALY GREECE SPAIN TOTAL
New sea
arrivals
78,756 8,975 4,029 92,062
Dead and
missing (est.)
2,090
Asylum
applications
(EU total)
2015
1,325,565
2016 1,235,335
2017 (May) 192,330

36. The EU-Turkey agreement
 A political agreement
 Based on precarious assumptions
 Increasingly shaky
 The context
 Turkey – a safe third country?
 The impossibility of mass returns from Greece
 The impact of potential court rulings

37. The significant role of courts
 The European Court of Human Rights
 Article 3  Prohibition of extradition or expulsion to a
country where this person might suffer such risk.
 The European Court of Justice
 The EU-Turkey Statement is not in the EU legal order
 The Greek courts ?
 Is Turkey a safe country? The Greek Council of State
expected decision

38. The “relocation” mechanism
 Article 13 para. 1 regulation 604/2013: Where it is
established….that an applicant has irregularly crossed
the border into a Member State by land, sea or air
having come from a third country, the Member State
thus entered shall be responsible for examining the
application for international protection. That
responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on
which the irregular border crossing took place.

39. The “relocation” mechanism
(III)
 Article 80 TFEU: the policies of the Union in the area
of border checks, asylum and immigration and their
implementation are to be governed by the principle of
solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between the
Member States, and Union acts adopted in this area
are to contain appropriate measures to give effect to
this principle.

40. The “relocation” decisions
 Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 (14.9.2015) > 40.000
persons to be relocated from I and GR (16.000).
 The measures …, entail a temporary derogation from
the rule laid down in Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No
604/2013 ….
 Council Decision 2015/1601 (22.9.2015) >
120.000 persons in addition to the a/m 40.000,
(for GR 50.400)

41. The “relocation” mechanism
(II)
 Article 78(3) TFEU: in the event of one or more
Member States being confronted by an emergency
situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals
of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the
Commission and after consulting the European
Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the
benefit of the Member State(s) concerned.

42. The future
 More solidarity or the end of Schengen?
 The linkage with terrorist attacks
 A return to national politics? Disobedience as a policy vis-
à-vis the EU
 The increase in extreme, populist, anti-immigration
parties
 Towards a common European asylum or towards
national responses?